Anita Neville

[Firefighters, February 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I too acknowledge that today in Winnipeg more than 2,000 firefighters, volunteer firefighters, paramedics, police and armed forces from across North America joined the citizens of Winnipeg, and indeed representatives of this House, to say goodbye to two heroes: Captains Thomas Nichols and Harold Lessard.

The bravery of these two individuals and the countless others who put their lives in danger is something we can never forget. We must remember that whenever the siren goes off in a fire hall or the call comes into 911 or the ambulance is dispatched to the scene of an incident, brave men and women are putting their lives at risk for our safety and well-being.

I too ask my colleagues here in Ottawa to join with those in Winnipeg and all across Canada in paying tribute to Captain Nichols and Captain Lessard and all of the brave men and women who sacrifice for us on a daily basis. We remain indebted to them.

[Committees of the House, February 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard much about the facts. What is quite clear is that we need to have the facts.

The minister came before the committee and made it quite clear that she was reducing the administrative dollars. Now we are hearing that the program dollars are being reinvested.

When will all members get real information about what is happening with the funding for the Status of Women?

[Manitoba, February 9th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, last night, in response to my question on the Manitoba economy, the Conservative MP for Nepean—Carleton had the audacity to describe Winnipeg as a city where “streets are ruled by guns, gangs and thugs”. The people of Manitoba will be interested to know this is how their province is viewed by the Conservative government.

Is this view shared by the President of the Treasury Board? Is this view shared by his Manitoba Conservative colleagues? Indeed, is this the view of the Prime Minister? The people of Manitoba are watching and they want an apology.

[February 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his comments but it would have been nice to see a Manitoban here to respond. Again, it is part of a pattern.

The member opposite claims that moneys were not allocated. Those who were involved in the signing of the labour market partnership agreement know where that money was allocated. It was redistributed by the government, and those who were expecting it in Manitoba had it allocated and knew where it was going.

The member opposite neglected to answer the many other issues that I raised: the Wheat Board, east-west grid, Lake Winnipeg and homelessness. I ask members to come to Winnipeg on a day when it is minus 39° and see some of the things we are dealing with. When we see a $400,000 funding cut to a program and no response on the other side, no phone call returned, it is indeed time for that side to stand up for Manitoba and be there.

[February 8th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, during question period on November 23, 2006, I asked the question as to who on the government's side was minding Manitoba. I did so because it was apparent that no one on that side was speaking up for the province and for the concerns of Manitobans. The answers that day were non-answers.

The issues on which they remain silent or absent are numerous and are hurting many Manitobans. The most notable issue is that of the Canadian Wheat Board. There is absolute silence, despite the undemocratic attacks on the Wheat Board. There is silence as many farmers, many rural communities and many families are put at risk. There is silence at the potential devastating economic impact on the city of Winnipeg, with over 2,000 jobs, a payroll of over $60 million and potential devastation at the corner of Portage and Main.

The labour market partnership agreement, $129 million, signed with the province of Manitoba for training, employment, literacy and apprenticeship for youth, aboriginals, the disabled and people at risk, was cancelled, with not a word of protest. The child care agreement, again signed with the province of Manitoba, over $150 million over five years, for 6,000 designated rural and urban spaces, already designated, already planned for, was cancelled without a word. Homelessness funding for operating costs and some for capital was cancelled.

Macdonald Youth Services, providing support for many teens at risk, has been unable to get its phone calls returned since early November. We have heard nothing on the issues of the health of Lake Winnipeg, an important recreational and economic force in the province. There has been silence on the east-west power grid and the cut to literacy. Then there is a tepid response when there was an outcry for a short term.

The court challenges program, one of the few national programs in the city of Winnipeg, was eliminated without a word of concern. Women's programs, with funding approved locally, were cancelled nationally and again not a word, silence. With the closure of the Status of Women office in Winnipeg, there was silence. With the Kelowna accord, again, there was silence.

What a difference it would have made in the lives of many Manitobans for housing, education, water and economic opportunity, but there was silence. We remain optimistic that the Public Health Agency headquarters will remain in Winnipeg, and we certainly hope so. We are hopeful that the government will ensure that the museum of human rights becomes a reality.

My question is for those on the opposite side, those who have the authority. Why do they not speak up for the province of Manitoba?

[Canadian Human Rights Act, February 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thought that I had addressed that in my comments. Yes, there is a real concern when we rush with a six month implementation period of something of this sort.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission has called for an 18 to 30 month implementation period to allow for the accommodation and the necessary adjustments. Others have called for an openness so that should more time, even more than 30 months, be necessary, that it be available. My colleague has raised an important question and I thank him.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, February 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot give a definitive response to my colleague's question. There is uncertainty as to the implication for individual over collective rights. That is why I spoke about the need for an important analysis to be done before we pass this legislation. I said that the government seems to be doing it backwards. We need to know what it is going to mean before we move forward.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, February 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, human rights violations are being committed in first nations communities right across this land of ours. Human rights violations are being committed when someone does not have adequate housing, when someone does not have safe water, when someone does not have the opportunity to go to school, when someone does not have the opportunity to develop a skill. There are human rights violations which the government is choosing to ignore over and over and over again.

We know that any initiative by government is bound to fail unless it is done properly. To do it properly is to talk about doing a consultation with those most affected, to talk about an appropriate implementation plan, to look at all of the risks associated with implementation.

The last thing we want to do is to set something up for failure. My belief is that rushing it through this way will do just that.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, February 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that those of us on this side of the House will not take a back seat to anyone on human rights. I am very proud to be part of a group and a community that has championed human rights, a party that has enshrined in Canadian society the right to freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of expression and freedom of the press, to name but a few.

However, I listened to my colleague opposite, and before I get into the substance of the bill, I want to remind him that while his Conservative government has indeed introduced legislation to right a legislative wrong, it has to do more. We cannot talk about addressing human rights issues without addressing the human rights needs of individuals, such as housing, drinking water and education.

As we know, the Kelowna accord addressed many of these human rights needs of first nations. The actual negotiation for Kelowna took place over 18 months between 2004 and 2005. It focused on building a more promising future for aboriginals. It set aside more than $5 billion over that period to close the gaps in the needs that we expect all Canadians to have: the human rights needs of a safe place to live, a bed to sleep in, education, housing and economic opportunities.

In my view, it is a profound breach of faith that the minority Conservative government decided to break a promise made by the previous government, a solemn promise made to the leaders of the nation's five most prominent aboriginal groups.

If we are going to strengthen democracy, we cannot ignore the human rights needs of our first nations people that go beyond the legislative need to file a human rights complaint.

I will acknowledge that there has been a hole in the Human Rights Act, a hole that needed to be and should have been filled by previous governments.

When I speak of section 67 of the Human Rights Act, I acknowledge that it was designed to be in place for only a temporary period of time. That temporary period of time, we have heard, has been 30 years. It is time that steps are taken to extend to aboriginal peoples on reserve what those of us not on reserve take for granted, that is, the ability to file a human rights complaint when we feel that our rights are being abused.

However, while I support the intent of the legislation, and I want to underline the fact that I support it, I do have some concerns.

The first concern I want to raise has been raised by one of my colleagues in questioning. In keeping with its pattern of operation, the Conservative government has yet again failed to recognize and acknowledge that the time period in which the federal government would dictate policy to aboriginal people is behind it. It is no more.

We do not impose any more without consulting. Why the government would choose to operate in this way is beyond me. There has been no consultation. There has been no forewarning. There has been no discussion with first nations. There has simply been a decision made to do it and say that it is time to impose it. That is not the way to do business with first nations.

Previous reports that examined the effect of repealing section 67 of the Human Rights Act have made it clear that a transition and implementation period is necessary in order to effectively acclimatize first nations for the legislation. The Human Rights Commission, which we all know of and is well regarded, recommended that the transition and implementation period be a minimum of 18 months and up to 30 months. Other groups have also recommended an implementation and transition period of 30 months.

Did the government consider this when it drafted its recommendations? Did it consider what the Human Rights Commission had to say? Did it ask first nations how long they thought they needed before being adequately prepared? It appears not. It seems that they plucked a number out of the air and said that first nations have six months to prepare.

We know that most first nations do not have the resources or capacity to cope with the potential exposure to liability or to undertake measures to reduce risk. We know that in the bill the government has neglected to mention any resources that will be allocated to capacity building. There must be a capacity both to respond to and to prevent human rights violations.

Also, as it relates to the repeal of section 67, the government has chosen to ignore the matter, and again it has been raised here today, of an interpretive clause. By so doing, the government has once again said that it knows best. It has ignored the advice of the Human Rights Commission and the will of first nations, which both say that an interpretive clause is a necessary inclusion in any legislation dealing with section 67.

The purpose of the clause would be to assist the Human Rights Commission in adjudicating claims against first nations governments, agencies and institutions. In previous submissions on the repeal of the section, the Assembly of First Nations has strongly advocated for the inclusion of such a clause. It does so to ensure that their concern in maintaining an appropriate balance, which again we heard raised earlier today, a balance between collective rights and individual rights, is maintained, and consequently the tradition of collectivity carries on for future governments. Again the government has chosen to bypass this. Before Bill C-44 is finalized, there must be an accommodation for an interpretation clause.

Yet another concern as it relates to the repeal of section 67 is the impact it will have on aboriginal and treaty rights. The constitutional analysis and effect related to the repeal is unknown and needs to be examined before moving forward with the bill. We have heard that will happen in five years. It seems to me that this is putting the cart before the horse. Usually in all other areas when we implement legislation, we need to know what the impact will be, and then we move forward. We seem to be doing it backwards this time.

Another concern is the issue of jurisdiction and who is best able to deal with the issues of human rights complaints on reserves. In its report on section 67, again the Human Rights Commission suggests the possibility of the enactment of a first nations human rights commission and tribunal. Its idea, which I believe the Assembly of First Nations has endorsed enthusiastically, is nowhere to be seen in the legislation. The establishment of such a commission and tribunal would go a long way to addressing the concerns.

From the outset, I say on behalf of my party that we support the intent of the legislation. Our support for the purpose of the legislation, the extension of rights, is consistent with the Liberal Party's activities over the years from Confederation to today. However, I do have to note the irony that the same government that rushes to introduce the legislation is also responsible for successfully lobbying for the abandonment of the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples.

I agree that the same rights need to be extended across this country to every person. The fact that the legislation will extend the ability to file human rights claims is long overdue, but I repeat that there are concerns that need to be addressed. There are matters of consultation. There are matters of implementation. There are matters of capacity. There are matters of an interpretive clause. There is the matter of the analysis on the impact on treaty and aboriginal rights. Also, there is the whole issue of operation.

I look forward to seeing this piece of legislation go to committee. There is much work to be done in committee before it can be brought back to the House for a successful conclusion.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, February 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it you would find that there is unanimous consent for me to split my time with the member for Churchill.